King for a day, what would you do?

[Schaaf]

Your math is a little off. 14% growth on 1.12 million is not 1.16 million. This actually helps your numbers!

MN has 3/8 of 1% sales tax dedicated to conservation. It generates well over $100 million per year and has been very successful.

Although I like the concept, you might need a good plan on how to sell it to people who are elderly, do not value conservation, or those with big families.

He’s king. Let him cook.

 

[Tradewind]

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'd make all you SOB's go back to school and be forced to pass history, civics, gov't and economics.

Bunch of hoodlums, beatnicks and hippies.

 

[Nick87]

I'd make all you SOB's go back to school and be forced to pass history, civics, gov't and economics.

Bunch of hoodlums, beatnicks and hippies.

Guilty. Except the hippie part.....I think

 

[TheTone]

50% income tax rate for first 5 years as a resident of Idaho if moving here from CA, UT, WA or OR. Maybe some type of nasty property tax penalty also, especially if building a new home on previously undeveloped land. Also penalize them to no hunting, fishing or voting for 5 years

 

[ismith]

I'd make all you SOB's go back to school and be forced to pass history, civics, gov't and economics.

Bunch of hoodlums, beatnicks and hippies.

You'd be exiled to MSU, where you would teach a course called "The Golden Ratio: Guns, Women and Whiskey".

 

[ismith]

50% income tax rate for first 5 years as a resident of Idaho if moving here from CA, UT, WA or OR. Maybe some type of nasty property tax penalty also, especially if building a new home on previously undeveloped land. Also penalize them to no hunting, fishing or voting for 5 years

Also consider "Jus primae noctis", although that might backfire?

 

[TheTone]

Also consider "Jus primae noctis", although that might backfire?

Yeah, can’t make that rule. Could lead to some terrible situations

 

[Stifler]

He’s king. Let him cook.

He is right, it is off.. it should be around 1.27 million people, inturn bringing it to around $192 million in generated income. That was for sure my bad. But I'm king so I'd have some other people doing all that math.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You'd be exiled to MSU, where you would teach a course called "The Golden Ratio: Guns, Women and Whiskey".

There are only 2 schools in MT that can handle my genius, Western & Tech.

Anywhere else is beneath me.

 

[hank4elk]

Nooo...Wait...I'm not a kingk?
Lard & Meister?

I am the bickie server. Or so Rio seems to think.
One must let the peons think they have a leg up.

No Blackbird Pies here.

 

[Cornbread]

Do you ever think about the saying, “If I were king for a day?" I do from time to time. It leads me to this idea I have had for years. What if we had a small sales tax or a minor deduction from our monthly or yearly income in Montana to support FWP?

I’d like to know your thoughts. If you were in charge for a day, what would you change to help conservation in your state, or country you hunt? For me it’s Montana.

I’m not an expert like Ben Lamb or Randy Newburg, or claim to be. I'm sure my idea has cons. I also know taxes don’t always end up where they're supppsed to (HB442).

I would implement a tax to support FWP’s existing budget and then use the extra from license sales staying much more true to a non-resident cap. Biologists would have a large say in what’s sustainable. Public opinion would still matter in management, but if something isn’t working, they would present multiple biologists to recommend multiple options for the public to vote, and comment on. It might mean fewer opportunities, but we need to find better ways to increase wildlife, habitats, research, hire more wardens, and so on. That takes a budget large enough for FWP to be proactive, not mainly reactive. They have their wins too, times are just changing fast in my opinion. Only when they see a significant budget increase can we expect better conservation efforts. I believe that FWP’s decision-making is often budgetary limitations.

If I were king for a day, here’s my plan: A dedicated state tax or sales tax to fund FWP’s operational expenses. The money from hunting licenses sales, federal funding, and other permits, would be earmarked for habitat improvements, specific conservation programs, species management, buying smart land parcels to increase public areas or freeing landlocked parcels, etc.

•Proposed Budget: Significantly increase the 2023 budget to approximately $339 million by 2030. This increase includes the current budget of $165 million, plus an estimated $174 million from taxes, with the additional revenue from license sales and federal funding. The rationale is that investing in conservation, for all species from mule deer, cleaner fisheries, all the way down to porcupines, grouse, and insects. The wildlife protection, justifies the substantial budget, as it addresses diverse environmental needs.

• Each Montanan contributes: If every resident chipped in $150 annually, directly supporting the FWP. $12.50 cents a month.

• Projected Revenue: With Montana’s population growth (currently around 1.12 million est. 2022), we could bring in an estimated $174 million a year by 2030.

Population-Based Funding Model:

• Annual Contribution: I propose an annual contribution of $150 from each Montana resident, which would be allocated directly to the FWP.

• Current Population: Montana’s population stands at approximately 1.12 million as of 2022.

• Projected Population Growth: Forecasts show Montana’s population will grow by approximately 14% over the next 30 years, reaching 1.16 million by 2030. (Forever population will grow in MT I believe)

• Revenue Projection:

• Current Population (2022): 1,122,878

• Annual Contribution per Resident: $150

• Projected Population (2030): 1,160,000 (estimated)

• Total Annual Revenue for 2030 Without License Sales: $174,000,000 (estimated)

Or Estimated Sales Tax Strategy:

Using the total retail sales, we can estimate the sales tax rate:

Sales Tax Rate=$174,000,000 (budget)÷$16,940,000,000 (MT GDP retail sales)×100≈1.03%

Considering that retail sales are just a part of overall sales, the actual rate might need to be higher or lower to reach the same revenue target.

What We Might See:

• Better Conservation: With steady funding, FWP can more effectively protect our ecosystems and wildlife. No more overselling of tags (even if it’s a loss in season structure or opportunities). More time to manage the wildlife, less time worrying where they need to displace tag sales to reach a budget. Be able to add more animals back to the land. Money will always be needed for conservation. Let the biologists manage these districts more individually, than broad regions. I believe this is also the best way to keep us a opportunity state.

• License Revenue Usage: Redirect all license revenues towards on-the-ground conservation work, including habitat restoration, species management, more public land acquisitions, and increasing block management, cleaner fisheries, etc.

• Stable Funding: A dedicated tax would provide a reliable revenue for FWP operations, wardens, biologists, equipment, hunter/recreational education programs, etc.

• More Public Land: License funds would help buy land, protecting habitats and keeping public spaces open. Through strategic land purchases, or block management, we can ensure the preservation of Montana’s natural heritage for future generations. This also would spread hunting pressure.

• Continued Long-term Research: With this model for funding, we could have a better budget to hire, and work any concerns in region/unit-specific areas for all species. The more money we have, the less species will have to take a back seat to long-term research and goals.

In conclusion, this funding would offer what I think to be a sustainable way to support wildlife conservation. It would ensure FWP has the resources it needs while investing in the future of our state’s natural treasures.

•The Hard Part: Ensuring fiscal autonomy for the department would be necessary, and likely a publicly voted FWP commission. The members of the commission couldn't be appointed by the governor, or "retired". If Montana ever did consider the implementation of a tax to support FWP funding, it would be crucial to establish a framework that ensures fiscal autonomy for the agency. Taking inspiration from Wyoming’s model. Montana could benefit from a similar approach. This would protect the agency from the appropriations process that often introduces political influence into wildlife management decisions. Montana’s policy would have to stipulate that while general fund dollars (tax dollars) must be approved by the Legislature for operational costs, the revenue generated from licenses and federal funds would be used directly by FWP. This direct allocation would require the approval of the commission, similar to Wyoming’s system. Such a structure would give FWP the ability to manage and allocate funds with greater efficiency and less political interference, ensuring that wildlife management decisions are based on science and public interest rather than shifting political landscapes. Providing FWP with fiscal autonomy, and a public appointed commission we could ensure that the agency has the necessary resources to fulfill its duty effectively, without undue political influence. Protecting the landscape, and wildlife for future generations.

What is something you would do if you were king for a day for your state or country?

You are totally ignorant how the globalist biologists hired by FWP want to outlaw hunting and support population and lifestyle controls. You somehow have this distorted view that more govt & more taxes by incompetent beurocrats will solve all are problems. You are living in a fantasy world. And including more incompetent voters in the process ( they already are BTW) will also "improve" the results.
Go back to your job at the front door of Walmart. You have way too much time on your hands.

 

[Wild Bill]

You are totally ignorant how the globalist biologists hired by FWP want to outlaw hunting and support population and lifestyle controls. You somehow have this distorted view that more govt & more taxes by incompetent beurocrats will solve all are problems. You are living in a fantasy world. And including more incompetent voters in the process ( they already are BTW) will also "improve" the results.
Go back to your job at the front door of Walmart. You have way too much time on your hands.

No need to pick fights and bring up threads from six months ago.

 

[hank4elk]

I became a life member of RMEF and started another elk habitat project on my place.
Dotti the dobie is queen bee now.
I declared let there be light and it is done. Power in shop hooked up and back up generator installed.

Today I declared is a hunt day and HT friends will be here trying her luck on elk.
We will see if PIE is deserved later.

 

[Cornbread]

I became a life member of RMEF and started another elk habitat project on my place.
Dotti the dobie is queen bee now.
I declared let there be light and it is done. Power in shop hooked up and back up generator installed.

Today I declared is a hunt day and HT friends will be here trying her luck on elk.
We will see if PIE is deserved later.

Is it true that RMEF early on supported and funded the introduction of wolves?? That have gone on to wipe out huge #s of elk?? Just want to clarify. Please help me out.

 

[Cornbread]

No need to pick fights and bring up threads from six months ago.

Oh really. You have a lot to learn how idiot ideas take hold and end with disaster. Case in point all the wokesters pervasive in our country and our current President. How have they gained so much power??? Through enablers like you that give them credibility.

 

[Wild Bill]

Oh really. You have a lot to learn how idiot ideas take hold and end with disaster. Case in point all the wokesters pervasive in our country and our current President. How have they gained so much power??? Through enablers like you.

Pound sand.
Take your BS somewhere else. Hunt Talk is one of the last places to have good dialog and conversation. Don’t yuck it up trying to pick fights. Plenty of folks on FB for that kinda crap.

 

[hank4elk]

Is it true that RMEF early on supported and funded the introduction of wolves?? That have gone on to wipe out huge #s of elk?? Just want to clarify. Please help me out.

Dunno.
I did it for the "Free" boots and cap...clown.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Is it true that RMEF early on supported and funded the introduction of wolves?? That have gone on to wipe out huge #s of elk?? Just want to clarify. Please help me out.

No. Some RMEF members were upset that RMEF attempted to remain neutral and allow professional wildlife biologists and managers, state and federal, sort the issue(s) out. That lack of opposition to wolves resulted in rhetoric which you listened to that seemed to mean that "RMEF early on supported and funded introduction of wolves". But that was a distortion of the truth and reality of what occured at that time.

BTW, as someone who has keenly monitored the Northern Yellowstone elk herd(s) for decades, I was very upset with the decline in numbers. However, the truth and reality about that is also more complex in that there were a multitude of factors, including the wolves, but far more than merely that impact. Too many tags Hunting pressures, uptick in predators including more griz and lions, and more impacts. My point is that you may pick whatever enemy or condition you wish to blame for whatever your grievance ... but truth and reality is much more complex than pointing a finger at one boogey man.

 

[Cornbread]

So, let me get this straight, the RMEF members donate millions to support elk conservation efforts, and who doesnt realize a wolf is a huge, extremely smart predator, and they know the influence of these globalists and wokesters on govt paid biologists and they sat back??? And stayed out of the fray??? Is that what happened??